JONES Religious Studies Prof Takes on Ryan Mackey and Mark Roberts... Poorly

[twinstead]

I find the mental gymnastics required to suggest that being suspicious that the FDNY knew the building was going to come down and accusing them of being in on the plot are separate issues simply fascinating.

 

[T.A.M.]

Thank you.



I'm a bit surprised that you would resort to such obvious derailment. This thread is about a paper refuting Gravy and Mackey's specious conclusions that the FDNY knew WTC 7 would collapse.



I know this tactic drives you guys crazy, but my purpose here is to remind Gravy, as well as his devoted loyalists, that my reference to a FDNY member's quote that the word had come down from the OEM is in Gravy's paper.

Therefore, this is another exercise in research. Go through Gravy's paper like I did. Notice first how many of the accouhts use the pronoun "they" to refer to who sent "the word" down. Now, check for which member heard it from the OEM. Somehow this slipped by Gravy, but I have confidence in him. I"m sure he's found it by now, and will post it himself.

1. You are welcome.
2. My INTENT was not to derail. The topic of the paper, and your opinion on the topic is not exactly a huge derail is it?
3. I have not spoken on your research/reading of his paper, or your conclusion. I was merely asking you your view on the two points/questions I listed. You did not answer, I noticed. Like you said, this is an internet forum, and I think some conversational questions, related to the topic is not considered a complete faux pas, is it?

TAM

 

[The Big Dog]

I'm a bit surprised that you would resort to such obvious derailment. This thread is about a paper refuting Gravy and Mackey's specious conclusions that the FDNY knew WTC 7 would collapse.

.....

I know this tactic drives you guys crazy, but my purpose here is to remind Gravy, as well as his devoted loyalists, that my reference to a FDNY member's quote that the word had come down from the OEM is in Gravy's paper.

Dear Lord Ibis, you even managed to get the subject of the paper linked in the opening post completely 100% wrong! That paper, worthless as it is, does not "refute Gravy and Mackey's specious conclusions that the FDNY knew WTC 7 would collapse." The opposite is true! The author claims that the oral histories show that memebers of the FDNY knew the building was going to collapse, and this suggests that they knew because it was CD. Are you that obtuse?

And "this tactic drives you guys crazy." Tactic? Yes, I agree, your tactic of making baseless assertions, claiming that Gravy's paper supports it, and telling us to go find it ourselves does make us "Crazy."

It also makes you look like a worthless, lying troll, but you know that.

Keep chasing that Truth, Red Ibis.

 

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by RedIbis
If you haven't heard about it before, you must not be reading the quotes from your own paper.

I wonder what benefit RedIbis perceives that transparently lying gives him. It certainly doesn't look like he intends to stop lying, so there must be something in it for him.

 

[RedIbis]

I find the mental gymnastics required to suggest that being suspicious that the FDNY knew the building was going to come down and accusing them of being in on the plot are separate issues simply fascinating.

Good, because it will help you focus on the specifics.

I'm going to summarize my perspective on this so I hope you guys and gals can respect that I don't have the time to answer each and every post, most of which are asking the same questions.

The topic of this thread and MacQueen's analysis is that Gravy and Mackey's work does not accurately describe many of the firefighter quotes on the imminency of WTC 7's collapse.

I'll be patient and persistent in this thread, because as I've stated earlier, I went through this with Gravy, as it's obvious in his debate strategy. There is a misrepresentation and generalization of what the firefighters and other FDNY reported.

One of the simplest things to do is go through the WTC 7 firefighter quotes on Gravy's page and look at the number of times the pronoun "they" is used.

Gravy called me a liar for suggesting that one of those quotes attributes "the word" as coming down from the OEM.

In other words, most of the accounts do not suggest that it was obvious the bldg would collapse. In fact, the only reason most of the firefighters said it was going to collapse was because that's what they were told.

 

[RedIbis]

so there must be something in it for him.

Yes, my dad's garlic dills from his mother's recipe.

 

[SDC]

OK, Red I., please tell us the "smoking gun" recollection in Gravy's materials which you've identified.

Please don't proceed as in the thread in which you accused Myers. Just tell us. Please.

 

[CHF]

That's the million dollar question. There are quotes in the oral histories that the OEM passed on the word.

OK, so let's say that someone from OEM passed on the word that the building would collapse (in addition to the FDNY who decided as much based on what they saw with their own eyes).

What's the implication of that?

 

[RedIbis]

OK, so let's say that someone from OEM passed on the word that the building would collapse (in addition to the FDNY who decided as much based on what they saw with their own eyes).

What's the implication of that?

A fair and concise question, you are my new favorite poster. The FDNY did not decide anything. We're talking about hundreds of different people of different ranks and departments. This incredible generalizing is what muddies the waters. Let's be specific.

Most of the firefighters reported that they were told the bldg would collapse, not that they thought the bldg would collapse.

The FDNY is not some monolith.

 

[Gravy]

OK, so let's say that someone from OEM passed on the word that the building would collapse

Let's not. Let's let RedIbis show us that the firefighters are lying that it was their determination and their decision to clear the area. Or could it be that the firefighters were – and are – telling the truth, and that RedIbis is lying?

 

[RedIbis]

Let's not. Let's let RedIbis show us that the firefighters are lying that it was their determination and their decision to clear the area.

I'd be happy to discuss this with you. Please clarify your question. I'm not accusing anyone of lying. The issue is whether or not firefighters reported being told that 7 would collapse, as opposed to what you persuade, that they believed it would collapse.

Just out of curiosity, can you post without using the word lie, or some variation? Or perhaps use a very specific example whenever making such a silly claim. Drop the pretense. We're both native New Yorkers, albeit with different baseball loyalties, and we're certainly both afficianados of the pickle.

 

[SDC]

A fair and concise question, you are my new favorite poster. The FDNY did not decide anything. We're talking about hundreds of different people of different ranks and departments. This incredible generalizing is what muddies the waters. Let's be specific.

Most of the firefighters reported that they were told the bldg would collapse, not that they thought the bldg would collapse.

The FDNY is not some monolith.

So some of the FDNY where in on it, per your figuring. Who, specifically? That is distinctly the implication of your comments: that some of the FDNY were implicated.

Probably in cahoots in Gen Myers and the elevator companies. (Though granted, that's my interpolation.)

What's wrong with generalizing, anyhow? Sometimes it's the only way to be honest.

 

[SDC]

Please clarify your question. I'm not accusing anyone of lying.

Cut to this by me.

Well yes, you are stating that someone had to have lied in the FDNY. Otherwise your statements make no sense.

By the way, the Yankees stink, and after September, I'm hardly amused by the Mets, either. Actually, I am amused; just depressed as well.

 

[RedIbis]

OK, Red I., please tell us the "smoking gun" recollection in Gravy's materials which you've identified.

Please don't proceed as in the thread in which you accused Myers. Just tell us. Please.

I fully admit that the pleasure is ridiculous, but pleasure none the less, if for no other reason than I can't believe the researchers here can't find a single FDNY quote that points to the OEM as passing the word on 7. I promise I will, but goodness gracious, google, ctrl + f, wonderful things they are.

Otherwise, this is the danger of defering to someone like Gravy. There is a presumption of objectivity and accuracy, which is often not the case.

 

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

The FDNY did not decide anything.

Liar.

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail.

Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94103

 

[CHF]

The FDNY did not decide anything.

Actually, chief of operations Daniel Nigro made the call to PULL back from WTC7 because it was feared the building would collapse.

We're talking about hundreds of different people of different ranks and departments. This incredible generalizing is what muddies the waters. Let's be specific.

Yeah, that's what I was hoping you'd so: be specific.

Even if we pretend for the sake of argument that someone from OEM claimed the building would collapse and passed this info on down the line (even though you have not proven this)....what does this all mean?

I see it as you simply accusing someone in the OEM in order to avoid having to accuse the FDNY (even though at least some firefighters made the determination ON THEIR OWN!)

Please reconcile this FDNY knowledge with a demolition, if you'd be so kind.

 

[RedIbis]

Liar.

Goodness. You completely misinterpreted my point. Never did I suggest that some top members of the FDNY didn't state that the bldg would collapse.

You're charging a strawman on this one.

 

[RedIbis]

Gravy,
Did many of the firefighters report that they were told WTC 7 would collapse?

Is Capt. Currid a liar?

 

[SDC]

This is kind of like Red's accusation against Myers; in the sense that indirect (at best!) evidence is introduced to accuse someone whom no one else has thought to drag in. Either he is accusing the OEM of being the bad guys, or some parts (upper echelons?) of the NYPD.

Sigh. Nihil sine magno labore, or something like that; roughly, everything is too much work.

 

[CHF]

Red!

Even if we pretend for the sake of argument that someone from OEM claimed the building would collapse and passed this info on down the line (even though you have not proven this)....what does this all mean?

I see it as you simply accusing someone in the OEM in order to avoid having to accuse the FDNY (even though at least some firefighters made the determination ON THEIR OWN!)

Please reconcile this FDNY knowledge with a demolition, if you'd be so kind